.3 

C76 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



012 028 964 



peunuliffe* 
pH8J 



I=> E E C I^ 



.T. .T. C () C) M i^^ip,^L;sq,^. 

DELIVKRKD IT TUK TnIoN I-HAOUE RKADIVrjtOjJiM. WttSnilidTSjN,^!))^ 
TUKSDAY KVKNINO, SKl'TKMlW J. /* ^' 



Mk. President and Fellow-Citizens: 

As our victorious nrmii-s and our invincible navy continnc to press 
upon the rebellious territory in all directions, by land and by sea — as 
the strongholds of the enemy begin to totter and full, and their iniqui- 
tous cause becomes niore and more desperate, from day to day, we 
begin to receive evidences that the Union sentiment is not wholly ex- 
tinct in the revolted States. If we can believe the reports which come 
to us from the front, that sentiment still has a lodgment in the hearts 
of men in some localities where we least expected to find it. In the 
good old State of North Carolina the friends of the old flag are begin- 
ning to take ground in favor of a " reconstruction of the Union," and 
to denounce the authors of their ruin, with a boldness which shows no 
small degree of conlidence in their own strength. 

In view of the probability that in .some of the so-called seceded 
States, Union men, or ''reconstructioni.sts," may ere long regain the 
political ascendancy, and the States l)e knocking at the doors of the 
Union for practical readmission, the question as to the terms upon 
which they shall be received becomes one of absorbing interest, and 
challenges the profound consideration of every reflecting Union man. 

It is important, not only that the loyal Union men of the country 
shall take ground in favor of a policy that is in it.self right and just, 
and one which will tend to secure the perpetuity of the Union, as well 
as to practically restore it — but it is especially important that they 
shall commit themselves to no policy, however high or holy its objects, 
which will not meet the approbation of a majority of the legal voters 
of the loyal States. This is a practical consideration which it will be 
criminal to ignore, unless we can satisfy our consciences with having 
entertained good intentions, regardless of practical results. 

Within a little more than a year from this time, the people of the 
loyal States will choose a Chief Magistrate to administer the Govern- 
ment for the ensuing four years. Within the same time most of the 
loyal States will elect members of the Congress which will come into 
power simultaneously with that Administration. 

In these elections there will be but two jmrties to the contest. On 
the one side will be arrayed the thorough Union men of the country ; 
on the other, men who, if not disunionists ;)<t «<•, are at least unwilling 
that any thing eflectual shall be done for the preservation of the Union. 
In short, it will be a contest between Union men and that class of po- 
liticians known as " Copperheads." 

I may as well here define what I understand to be the difference 
between a Union man and a " Copj>erhead." 

A true Union man is one who abhors and detests this accursed re- 
bellion, its authors, aiders and abettors, and is in. favor of suppressing 
it by force of arms. To that end he would have the Government put 
forth all its energies and constitutional powers, in a vigorous prosecu- 
tion of the war, so long as there is a hostile squadron in the field. He 

/" • -■„ 



£^S^ 



2 .2 

knows that the war for the supptession of the rebellion can only be 
carried on through the agency oi the general Government, and the 
public functionaries who administer it. He knows that the present 
Administration is honestly endeavoring to put the rebellion down, and 
that to oppose it in these endeavors, is to give aid and comfort to 
traitors and rebels in arms. Hence he is necessarily a hearty supporter 
of the present Administration, though he may doubt the wisdom or 
expediency, or even the constitutionality, of some of its measures. — 
For even if he conceives that the Administration has sometimes tran- 
scended the limits of the Constitution for the purpose of saving it, that 
is to him no good reason for turning against the Administration, and 
lending his sympathies to those who have taiceu up arms for the 
avowed purpose of utterly destroying the Constitution. 

A "Copperhead" is one opposed to putting down the rebellion by 
force of arms ; and, consequently, opposed to all the war measures of 
the Administration. He may talk loudly in favor of " the Union as 
it was, and the Constitution as it is," yet so long as he is unwilling to 
oppose by force those who are by open war striving to destroy both 
the Constitution and the Union, he practically gives the lie to all such 
professions. He sees nothing to approve in any of the measures of the 
Administration tending to the suppression of the rebellion, and very 
little to condemn in the rebellion itself. He is a man of nice consti- 
tutional scruples, as to all measures for the defence of the Constitution, 
but can look with complacency on an effort to utterly destroy it by 
force and arms. He cries "peace ! peace!" when he knows there can 
be no peace, except upon the condition of assenting to the final disrup- 
tion of the.Ujiion. 

It is bet^veen tJiese parties that the contest will be in the next Presiden- 
tial and Cqngressional elections. During the term of the Administra- 
tion and the Congress then to be chosen, in all probability, the princi- 
ples .upon which the Union shall be practically restored, or finally 
dissevered, will k{ive to be settled. If the " Copperheads" shall suc- 
ceed in electing a president and a majority of the members of the next 
Congress, their first eflbrt will be to effect a compromise with the 
rebels. Their avowed programme is, first to suspend the war, and 
then negotiate for a compromise. The very proposition to compro- 
mise gives the lie to their professions in favor of maintaining the 
" Constitution as it is." To effect that, it is only necessary to put down 
the rebellion. What obstructs the enforcement of the Constitution 
" as it is," at this moment? Nothing but armed resistance. It re- 
quires no compromise to remove that obstruction. It requires hard 
knocks and heavy blows to overcome and batter down the resistance — 
nothing more — nothing less. Under existing circumstances, a propo- 
sition to compromise with the rebels is a proposition to change the 
Constitution. They took up arms to destroy it, because they were 
unwilling to abide by it "as it is." The proposition to compromise 
■with them, therefore, implies that the Constitution is to be so modified 
as to render it more acceptable to them : that new guaranties are to be 
given for the protection and perpetuation of their " peculiar institu- 
tion ;" or, perhaps, for an increase of their political power in the Union. 

A moment's reflection will show that any such compromise is im- 
possible. In the first place, it is idle to dream that the requisite ma- 



jority of States would ever concur in such amendments of the Consti- 
tution as would make it any more acceptable to tliose now in rebellion. 
In tlie second place, a modification of the CiMUititution is not what they 
are contending for. They arc fighting for a final separation ; for ab- 
solute independence; and nothing sh(;rt of superior force opposed to 
them can prevent them from accomplishing that object. They will 
voluntarily enter into no compromise which docs not secure that end ; 
and as the " Copju^rheads" are ojiposed to carrying on the war against 
them, a lbrce(l fompromisc would be out of the (juestion. If there is 
any thing that the "Copperheads" are fairly committed to, it is to stop 
the war. The leader whom they now most delight to honor glories 
in the fact that in (,'ongress (of which he has been a member since the 
war commenced) he has never voted a man nor a dollar f«^r the prose- 
cution of the war. For this, and his bitter opposition to every war 
measure, in and out of Congress, they are now striving to elect him 
Governor of Ohio. They will go to the rebels, therefore, proposing a 
compromise, but telling them, at the same time, that they intend to 
stop the war, at all events. To stop the war is to let the rebels have 
every thing their own way. It is to acquiesce in a final separation of 
the Union, and the independence of the "Confederate States." Why, 
then, should the rebels compromise on any but their own terms, if the 
war is to be no longer prosecuted against them ? To maintain the 
" Union as it was," therefore, or even to " reconstruct" it, by compro- 
mise, is entirely out of the question : even if the " Copperheads" come 
into power. The only other alternative, under their policy, has already 
been mentioned. It is a final separation of the Union, and the estab- 
lishment of the independence of the " Confederate :^tates." 

It is of the first importance, therefore, that the true Union men of 
the country shall construct for themselves no platform on which a 
majority of the voters of the loyal States will hesitate to take an un- 
yielding stand. Our first object should be success in the elections ; 
to keep the Copperheadi out of power. Unless we first secure this 
object, all our plans for preserving or "reconstructing" the Union 
will amount to nothing. Our platform, therefore, musf. not only be 
based on good motives and good intentions, but it must be invulner- 
able to the assaults of our enemies. We must give them no plausible 
pretext for charging us with advocating measures in conflict with the 
Constitution. A party in power is a hundred times more vulnerable 
before the people than a party out of power. The party out of power 
acts wholly on the offensive, having nothing to defend. If the people 
can be made to believe that the party in power is pursuing a policy 
in conflict with the Constitution, or detrimental to the public welfare, 
they resolve to go for a change, without stopping to inquire whether 
the party to take their place may not prove but "a more hungry 
swarm of flies." Remember the Fall elections of 1862. The war at 
that time was not progressing in a manner very satisfactory to the 
Union men of the country. The Seymours and the Vallandighams 
went before the people denouncing the party in power for a want of 
energy in the prosecution of the war, and thereby actually seduced 
them to vote for men opposed to prosecuting it at all. 

With a view to success in the elections, if for no other reason, we 
should commit ourselves to no policy which we caunot successfully 



defend before the people, when assailed on constitutional grounds. 
For the same reason, we should shun a platform radically inconsistent 
with the past action of the Government and the theories it has uni- 
formly maintained, in respect to the rebellion and its eftects upon 
States and citizens. If we go before the people on a platform which 
repudiates the cardinal theory upon which the present Administration 
and the last Congress have unilormly acted, will they not be very 
likely to say, " if it has taken you all this time to -find out that you 
have been acting under a radical mistake, it is time for us to transfer 
the powers of the Government to a party that will at least understand 
its own position ?" Nothing is so fatal to a party in power as to stul- 
tify itself, by adopting a platform which utterly condemns its past 
acts. 

With these preliminary remarks, I come to the consideration of a 
question which, in my judgment, is beginning to assume a very im- 
portant aspect before the country. That question relates to the terms 
upon which the Union shall be practically reinstated, when the rebel- 
lion is put down. I wish it to be understood, that whenever I speak 
of the "reconstruction" or "restoration" of the Union, I mean its 
practical reconstruction or restoration, not intending to admit that in 
law it has ever been dissolved. And whenever I use the term " sece- 
ded States," I simply mean those States which have assumed to secede. 
That the institution of Slavery is the remote as well as the immedi- 
ate cause of the existing rebellion, is a notorious and undeniable fact. 
The feeling is undoubtedly gaining ground in the loyal States, that 
human Slavery is so inconsistent with the spirit and genius of our 
Republican institutions, that the two cannot permanently exist to- 
gether; and that any practical "reconstruction" of the Union which 
shall leave the institution of Slavery intact, will be scarcely worth 
striving for : That any union of the States, so long as a portion of 
them shall tolerate Slavery, will necessarily contain within itself the 
seeds of its own dissolution, and consequently have but an ephemeral 
existence. Hence it is beginning to hQ regarded by many as a sine 
qua non to any practical reconstruction of the Union, that Slavery 
shall be utterly abolished throughout its borders. Gentlemen occu- 
pying prominent positions before the country are beginning to advo- 
cate the doctrine, that no rebellious State should be permitted to prac- 
tically resume her former relations to the Union, except on condition 
of abolishing a local institution deemed so dangerous to its perpetuity. 
As a life-long anti-slavery man, always regarding the institution of 
Slavery as a national curse and disgrace, founded upon principles of 
the most flagrant injustice and inhumanity, I should rejoice to see the 
Union of all the States practically restored, without a vestige of 
slavery remaining within its borders. Yet, when the loyal people of 
any rebellious State shall have regained the political ascendancy 
therein, and the State shall ofler to resume her former relations to the 
Union, I cannot see on what sound principle she can be prevented 
from so doing, until she complies with conditions not prescribed by 
the Constitution " as it is." 

If we conceded the riglit of secession, under the Constitution, or the 
fact that the rebellious States had actually succeeded in establishing 
their independence, and in instituting a legitimate Government for- 



ei.G^n to that.of the Unitd States, tlio proposition, to my minfl. would 
present no diiru-ultios. For I do not doiiht the rigit to anu-x condi- 
tions, in respect to Slavery, to tlic admission of now Stat«js ; an<l if 
these States arc fairly ""' of tlio Union, tlicy can only come in again 
on the footing of new Slates. But ve utterly deny the right of any 
State to withcli-aw from the Union. peaceai)ly or forcibly ; and this 
war, on our })art. can only be justified on the ground that no such 
right exists. And not only do iff deny that the rebellious States have 
succeeded in establishing their independence, but as yet no Govern- 
ment on the lace of the earth has recognized their bogus Coni'ederacy 
as a legitimate member of the great family of nations. 

We have uniformly regarded and treated that pretended political 
organization which has assumed the name of the "Confederate States 
of America," and all its acts, as being, to all intents and purposes, just 
as spurious, and destitute of legitimate authority, as wouM be the or- 
ganization and acts of an insurrectionary mob which might succeed 
in obtaining temj)orary ])0ssessi(5n of a city, subverting the constituted 
authorities and laws, and setting up its own will, or that of its leaders, 
instead. On the suppression of such a mob. the constituted authori- 
ties and laws Avould immediately resume their sway, and all innocent 
peo]>le would be re-instated in their rights, a.s belore the insurrection. 
Why will not the same consequences follow the suppression of that 
great insurrectionary mob, which for more than two years has held 
an usurped supremacy throughout the rebellious States ? If there are 
any loyal peijple in those States, who have not forfeited their rights 
by voluntary acts of treason, why will not all their j)olitical rights re- 
vert to them, when this obstruction .shall be removed ? It is well 
known that in some of the j-cbellious States the majority of the people 
were ojiposed to the rebellion at its inception, and to the attempted 
act of secession. But, being unjirepared for the emergency, they were 
compelled to succumb to the pressure of an active, organized, armed 
and insolent minority, thoroughly pre{)ared to carry their point by a 
cot/p de main. It is believed that many of these people have remain- 
ed loyal at heart, giving no more countenance or support to the rebel- 
lion than has been extorted from them by force and fear. If these peo- 
ple have failed, since the rebellion broke out, to perform their duties, 
as citizens of the United States, towards the Federal Government, it is 
because they have been prevented by irresistible power. During all 
this time the Federal Government has been as powerless to perform 
its duties towards them, as they to perform their duties towards the 
Government. That they liave submitted to a power which neither 
they nor the Government which owed them protection were for the 
time being able to resist, is no crime, and ought not to subject thera 
to the forfeiture of any of their rights. 

It ought to be remembered tliat the Federal Government is in no 
slight degree responsible for the state of things which exists in the 
rebellious States. Of course I do not allude to the Government aa 
administered since the fourth of March, 1861. But under the prece- 
ding Administration, the incipient rebellion was not only winked at by 
the President, but received its strongest nourishment from the foster- 
ing hands of members of his Cabinet. The probability is. that the 
loyal citizens of the great city of New York would to-day have been 



2s completely under the Jomiuation of can insurrectionary mob as the 
oyal people of North Carolina are, if this Administration had done no 
more for their protection than the late Administration did for the pro- 
tection of the loyal people of the Southern States, in the incipiency of 
the rebellion. When the insurrection first showed its head in South 
Carolina, tw'ent}' thousand Federal troops would have been sufficient 
to suppress it, and to nip the rebellion in the bud. The loyal 
people of the South were entitled to that protection, which was with- 
held from them. It is true the}- did not ask for it; few of them, at 
that time, believed they stood induced of it. They did not know the 
extent of the conspiracy against their rights and liberties, nor the im- 
minent peril which was impending over them, Tlie Federal Government, 
uid'-r the Administration r,f Jaiiics BucJianan, can plead no such ignorance. 

To see how this proposition of annexing conditions to the return of 
the seceded States to the Union would work, in practice, let us sup- 
pose a case : Let us suppose that the people of North Carolina shall 
elect a majority of Union men to both branches of her State Legisla- 
ture, and that this body shall repeal every act passed since the pre- 
tended act of secession, tending to impair the normal relations of that 
State to the Union, and re-enact every law which has been repealed 
during the same time. Let us sujipose, further, that the same Legis- 
lature shall call a Constitutional Convention, which Convention shall 
restore the State Constitution precisely as it existed prior to the rebel- 
lion. And then let us suppose that, under such restored Constitution 
and laws, members are duly elected to the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives of the United iStates, who are not disqualified by any acts 
of personal participation in the rebellion, and that said members come 
forward and claim their seats in Congress. Could their claims be re- 
sisted, consistently with the Constitution, or with the theory which 
our Government has uniformly maintained, as to the eftect of the re- 
bellion upon the political status of the seceded States, and of the loyal 
citizens thereof? Could Congress require, as a condition precedent to 
their admission as members, that North Carolina should first abolish 
Slavery ? Could ^Congress impose any otlier conditions as to their 
admission, than such as could have been imposed before the rebellion, 
as to the admission of members from that State? 

If, when the rebellion shall have been put down, and the loyal peo- 
ple of the rebellious States shall have regained the political ascend- 
ancy therein, those States cannot resume their former relations to the 
Union on the terms prescribed by the present Constitution of the Uni- 
ted States, then they can only practically come back by virtue of an 
actual reconstruction of the Union, in law as well asin/ac7; that is to 
say, under a neiv or modified Constitution, And by what authority 
shall the Constitution be amended, to accomplish this end ? Surely, 
we cannot consistently claim that it can be amended without the con- 
currence of the Le^Msiatures of three-fourths of all the States, includ- 
ing those now in rebellion. And as the rebellious States constitute 
more than one-fourth of the entire number, I do not see how it is 
practicable to amend the Constitution at all, so long as they remain in 
rebellion, until we shall have either acknowledged their independence 
or admitted so many new States that wc can outnumber them three to 
one. 



Our Government is, and has been ever since this rebellion has ex- 
isted, daily doinj^; u^ts which recognize, in tiie in(.)st uue(|uiv()cal man- 
ner, the rebellious States as still being members of the Federal Union. 
We accord to the loyal citizens of those States all the rights, privi- 
leges, franchises and immunities, of citizens of the United State?. We 
appoint them to oiVices which none but citizens of the United States 
are eligible to fill. We accord to them other rights, which none but 
citizriis (if a S/((t'\ in l/ic Union, are entitled to under the Constitution; 
among wnich is the right of rcprrscntalion in Cnn'jn'ss, whenever, and 
wherever they find themselves able to exercise that right, by electing 
members. If they are still, in law, States of this Union, then it is im- 
possible for the remaining States to modify the Constitution, except in 
an unconstitutional way — and that would be simply revolution. 

Two theories have been put forth by gcntleinen occupying promi- 
nent positions before the country, upon which the right to annex 
terms and conditions to the practical return of the rebellious States to 
the Union is attempted to be maintained. Both of them are utterly 
inconsistent with the theory upon which the Government, in all its 
departments, has hitherto acted. Both of them assume that the rebel- 
lious States have ceased to be members of the Federal Union ; yet 
neither of them admits that they have succeeded in establishing their 
independence. 

The first of these theories which I shall notice, is this : That the 
States in rebellion have ceased to exist (w Stales : but the. territory be- 
ing still within the rightful jurisdiction of the Federal Government, 
the inhabitants remain citizens of the United States; but "are in the 
condition of the inhabitants of unorganized territories belonging to the 
United States." And, " having forfeited their rights, they can never 
be restored to their former position, except by the consent of the Fed- 
eral Government. This consent may be given by admitting them as 
new States, or restoring them as old — the Government having the 
right in either case to annex terms and conditions." 

This definition I take almost literally from a well written article 
in the " Atlantic Monthly" for August, in support of this theory. It 
will be seen that the argument assumes that the rebellion has been so 
far successful, that it has actually dissolved the political connection of 
the rebellious States with the Union ; but has not wrested from the 
United States the right of eminent domain over the territory, nor ab- 
solved the inhabitants from their allegiance to the Federal Govern- 
ment. Now, I insist that, according to the true theory of the Union, 
it is impossible for rebels and traitors to dissolve the connection of any 
State with the Union, except in one way — and that is, by a successful 
revolutinyi — one which shall completely oust the Federal Government 
of all jurisdiction over the territory, and absolve the people from their 
former allegiance. These are necessary efYects of a successful revolu- 
tion. That any success of an attempted revolution short of this can 
destroy, in law as well as in/a'7, the legitimate relations of a State to 
the Union, is, to my mind, a palpable fallacy. 

But how is this theory to be reconciled with the past acts of the 
Government? If the rebellious States are reduced to the condition of 
" unorganized territories," then the inhabitants are entitled only to 
such political rights as the people of such territories enjoy. The pec- 



8 

pie of our " unorganized territories" have no right to be represented 
in Congress, even by non-voting delegates. But we admit members — ■ 
voting members from the so-called seceded States, to hold seats in Con- 
gress, whenever elected thereto by loyal voters in their respective dis- 
tricts. At no time, since said States pretended to secede, have less 
than three of them been represented, in part, by voting members, in 
the House of Representatives. The President, in his Emancipation 
Proclamation, (of September 22d, 1862,) invited the people of those 
States, or of portions of them, to send Representatives to Congress, 
holding out strong inducements for them to do so. If they had ceased 
to be States of the Union, the President committed a great blunder in 
thus inviting them to send members to Congress ; and the House of 
Representatives committed a still greater blunder in receiving them. 
For my part, I am not prepared to accept a theory which brands both 
the Executive and Legislative branches of the Government with such 
consummate ignorance and stupidity. 

The other theorj' difters from this, only in going one long step fur- 
ther. It assumes that not only have the rebellious States ceased to 
have any legal existence, as States of this Union, but that all the in- 
habitants of those States have become p7(bb'c tncmies to the United 
States, whether they have aided or opposed the rebellion. 

This theory has lately been distinctly put forth by a gentleman 
holding a high position in one of the Executive Departments of the 
Government, [Mr. WiiiTiXG, Solicitor of the War Department,] in a 
published letter, in which he lays down the following propositions: 

" Whenever two nations are at war, ever}- subject of one belligerent 
nation is a public enemy of the other. An individual may be a per- 
sonal friend and at the same time a public enemy to the United 
States. The law of war defines international relations. When the 
civil war in America became a territorial war, every citizen residing in 
the belligerent districts became a public enemy, irrespective of his pri- 
vate sentiments, whether loyal or disloyal, friendly or hostile, Union- 
ist or Secessionist, guilty or innocent." 

The learned writer relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court of 
the United States, in the prize cases of last term, (the case of the Hia- 
watha and others,) as establishing the proposition, that when this civil 
war became territorial, every citizen residing in the belligerent dis- 
tricts became a public enemy. He says that all the Judges concurred 
in the opinion, that the war became territorial on the passage of the 
act of July 13, 1861, commonly called the non-intercourse act; the 
majority holding that it became so at an earlier date, that is to say. as 
soon as general hostilities existed. From this he draws the deduc- 
tion, that all the Judges concurred in holding, lha( since the said I'dth 
day of July, 1861, tvcry citizen residing in t/ic beUigei-ent territory, 
" whether loyal or disloyal, friendly or limtile, Unionist or Secessionist, 
guilty or innocent,'''' has been a public enemy to the United States, and sub- 
ject to all the consequences of that relation to this Government which tcould 
attach to the citizen of an imlependent foreign nation at war tvith the Uni- 
ted Slates. No one will deny that this is a perfectly fair statement of 
his position. He lays it down and repeats it in various forms of lan- 
guage, all intended to show, that a loyal citizen of the belligerent ter- 
ritory has lost all political rights in the Union, by becoming a " pub- 



9 

lie enem}'- ;" and tJiat this is a legitimate deduct ion from the decision 
of the Sapreme Court in the case referred to. In order to maintain 
this position, he attributes langujifj^e to the Court which is nowhere to 
be found in the decision from which he professes to quote. 

What the learned Judge delivering the opinion of the Court did 
say on this point, was in these words : 

" It [the rebellion] is no loose, unorganized insurrection, liaving no 
definite boundary or possession. It has a boundary marked by lines 
of bayonets, and which can be crossed only by force. South of this 
line is enemies' territory, because it is claimed and hehl in possession 
by an organized, hostile and belligerent power. All j)ersons residing 
within this territory wiiose pro|)crty may be used to increase the rev- 
enues of the hostile power, are, in this contest, liabk to be treated (is 
enemies, though not foreigners.'' 

To understand the force and effect of this language, it is necessary 
to know what questions were before the Court. In the language of 
the Court, they were as follows : 

" 1st. Had the President a right to institute a blockade of ports in 
possession of persons in armed rebellion against the Government, on 
the principles of international law, as known and acknowledged among 
civilized States? 

"2d. Was the property of persons domiciled and residing within 
these States a proper subject of capture on the sea as " enemies' pro- 
perty ?" 

These were the questions, and the only questions, Jiriihd. The 
learned Judge delivering the decision, in support of it reasoned thus: 
When a civil war becomes territorial, the Government may enforce 
certain belligerent rights against the tert-itonj, to cripple the resources 
of the enemy, by acts which are territorial in t/wir ojjtration and ejj'ect ; 
among which is the right of blockade. As to the enforcement of such 
rights, " all persons residing within the hostile territory" are '' liable 
to be treated as enemies,'''' because " their proixrtij man ^'' "•"'^'^ ^^ increase 
the revenues of the hostile poiver." The learned Judge might have given 
another reason why they are liable to be so treated, that is to say, be- 
cause in resorting to belligerent acts which are territorial in their ope- 
ration and effects, it is impossible to discriminate between friends and 
foes, in the territory assailed. Loyal persons residing in the hostile 
territory are liable to be treated as enemies — not because they are 
such in fact or in law, but because belligerent acts against the terri- 
tory necessarily operate upon all the inhabitants alike. This is one 
of the many misfortunes incident to their unhappy situation and sur- 
roundings. 

It is impossible that the Court could have intended to afTirm any 
such principle as the learned writer deduces from their decision. If 
his deduction is legitimate, it puts one, if not two of the Judges, in the 
rediculous position of deciding that he himself was a public enemy to 
the Government whose highest judicial functions he was then admin- 
istering. Two of the Supreme .ludges are citizens, and in law resi- 
dents of rev ohing States. One of them lives in a State [Tennessee] 
excepted by the President, in his Proclamation of January 1st, 1863 ; 
and the writer seems to entertain the opinion that somehow or other 
this would save him from becoming a public enemy — or rather, would 



10 

take him out of that category, which, according to his theory, he cer- 
tuinly must have been in prior to the Prochimation. But the other 
has no such chance of escajie. Xo portion of his State [Georgia] is 
excepted by the Proclamation. It is probably true that he has not 
been jifrsonallij within the limits of that State since the rebellion broke 
out; but he has never renounced his citizenship, nor abandoned his 
residence there. He is in the condition of thousands of loyal refugees, 
who have temporarily fled from the rebellious territory, intending to 
return to their estates and homes as soon as the rebellion is put down. 
They are still, in law, citizens and residents of their respective States. 
No principle of law is better settled than that a man does not lose 
his residence by leaving it for a temporary purpose, with the intention 
to return when that temporary purpose is accomplished ; even though 
he may remain absent for years. So long as the animus revrt'.ndi ex- 
ists, his legal domicil remains unchanged. The loyal citizen of a re- 
bellious State, who, being absent from the rebellious territory when 
the war broke out, has remained away with the intention of return- 
ing to his home when the rebellion shall be suppressed, is in no dif- 
ferent condition from the loyal refugee who has fled and remained 
away from his home with the same intention ; and neither of them is, 
or ought to be, in any better condition than the loyal citizen who has 
remained at home, because he could not get away. They are all in 
the same boat : If one has lost his political rights in the Union by 
becoming a public enemy to his Government, all have. 

Suppose it was a foreign enemy that held complete military posses- 
sion of the seceded States, maintaining a boundary line of bayonets, 
which could only be crossed by force ; utterly suppressing all the 
constituted authorities within that boundary, and reducing the inhabi- 
tants to unconditional submission to military rule. Would not the 
General Government, under these circumstances, have a right to treat 
the war as territorial, by instituting a blockade to cripple the resources 
of the enemy? If not, then a foreign enemy would have immunities 
when invading our territory, that he could not claim when occupying 
his own. And if, under such circumstances, the war did become ter- 
ritorial, would all the inhabitants of the territory, " whether loyal or 
disloj^al, friendly or hostile," become public enemies to the United 
States ? 

If the loyal people of the rebellious States have actually become 
public enemies, and occupy the same relation towards the United States 
as if they were citizens of an independent hostile nation, then, indeed, 
are they not only deprived of their political rights, but of their private 
rights also. They can neither acquire nor hold property in the United 
States, enter into valid contracts with the citizens thereof, nor sue in 
our courts. But instead of all this, how have they actually been treated 
by our Government ? We find them filling offices of trust and profit, 
occupying seats in Congress, and settling grave Constitutional ques- 
tions on the bench of our highest judicial tribunal. 

I admit that it is a well settled principle of the law of nations, that 
a legitimate Government has power to fix the relations of its own sub- 
jects towards other Governments, even against the will of the subject. 
My Government can make me a public enemy to Great Britain, by 
declaring war against that power, whether I will it or not. But I ut- 



11 

terly deny tliat a mere band of insurgents and traitors, liowcver nu- 
merous or powerful, can put mc in that position towurds my own Gov- 
ernment against my will — unless it miglit be by forcing m'e into their 
military service. Will you apply tlii.s doctrine to the loyal peDple of 
Eastern Tennessee ? W ill you admit that Jefl". Davis and all his rebel 
crew have had power to convert into public enemies of this (jovern- 
ment those noble men who have adhereil to their allegiance and the 
old flag, with a heroism that commands our highest admiration, through 
long years of unrelenting jiersecution ? — who, rather than submit to 
his bogus Government, have tied to the wilderness, dwelt in the caves 
of the mountains, or lingered and languished in loathsome prisons? 
The proposition is a monstrous one. 

The learned writer referred to has fallen into one rather ludicrou.s 
inconsistency. While laying down the proposition broadly, that when 
the war became territorial, " every citizen," or, as he says in another 
place, "each person" residing in the belligerent territory became a 
public enemy to the United States, he wholly loses sight of the condi- 
tion in which this would place the colored population of the rebellious 
States. For, in a subsequent paragraph, he expresses the earnest hope 
that "we may be saved the unfathomable infamy of breaking the na- 
tion's faith with Europe, and with colored cilizens and slaves in (he 
Union" This criticism, however, is not mine. It has an editorial 
paternity. 

I have spent more time than I intended in reviewing these crude 
and inconsistent theories. But as they are the only theories I have 
seen advanced, upon which the right of annexing terms and conditions 
to the practical return of the so-called seceded States to he Union has 
been attempted to be maintained, I have deemed it my duty to expose 
some of their weak p(jints. 

I have said nothing about the President's Emancipation Proclama- 
tion, because it has nothing to do with the question under considera- 
tion. If the Union shall be practically restored under the Constitu- 
tion " as it is," the effect of the Proclamation upon slave propertv in 
the rebellious States will necessarily become a judicial question. If it 
shall be held by the judiciary to have liberated all the slaves, well and 
good. It will have accomplished a great work. There is, however, 
even among the strongest advocates of the Proclamation, a very gene- 
ral want of conlidence in its elBciency to liberate any slaves except 
those upon whom it may practically act during the prosecution of the 
war. It depends, for its validity, solely upon the fact that it is a 
" war measure" — an act which will tend to weaken the enemv, by 
crippling his resources. Hence, it is argued by many, it can have no 
legal effect in liberating slaves, except in so far as it may be actualh' 
enforced bv military power and authorit}-, during the progress of the 
war. This is the view of the subject which the writer in the " Atlan- 
tic Monthly," to whom I have referred, seems to favor. Hence those 
who, like him, think the abolition of slavery ought to be made a sine 
qua non to an}' practical reconstruction of the Union, are getting up 
new theories for the more sure accomplishment of that object. I by 
no means intend to depreciate the effects of the Proclamation, as a 
" war measure," in annoying and weakening the enemy, during the 
progress of the war. As such it has doubtless been, and will continue 
to be, a powerful auxiliary to our arms. 



12 

I now call your attention, fellow-citizens, to a new proposition, which 
I shall present in few words. I propose to show that if, on the sup- 
pression of the rebellion, the extirpation of slavery shall be deemed 
essential to the perpetuity of the Union thus practically restored, there 
is a feasible way of substantially elYccting that object, in ])ursuance of 
existing laws, without resorting to any measure of doubtful constitu- 
tionality, or in any wise inconsistent with the past acts and theories of 
the Government. 

Before proceeding to do this, however, let me put to rest some 
groundless apprehensions which are entertained, as to the etieets of 
renewing our fellowshij) with the seceded Slates, without some kind of 
restraining conditions. It is said we shall have Jeff. Davis and Toombs, 
and Keitt, and Pryor, back in the Senate and House of Kepresenta- 
tives, domineering over Northern men, and forming new coalitions 
with Northern "Copperheads" to again control the policy of the nation 
in the interest of slavery. Let me quiet these fears, by calling your 
attention to the ample safeguards which have been provided against 
this danger. 

By the third section of the act of Congress of July 17, 1862, com- 
monly called tlie " Conliscation Act," it is provided, that ever}'- person 
who shall have been guilty of treason against the United States, or of 
inciting, assisting, or engaging in, or giving aid and comfort to, any 
existing rebellion agaiust the authority of the United States, or the 
laws thereof, subsequent to the date of said act, " shal/ he forever inca- 
pahl- and (liHtjualijiml to ],nJd arnj office nmlr t/ie Unitf(l Stat'.'sy 

This disqualification is not made to depend upon a conviction of 
the offender, in a criminal prosecution. It is a question of fact, Avhich, 
in case of a claim to a seat in either House of Congress, would be tri- 
able by the Senate or House of Representatives, as the case might be, 
on evidence to be adduced before them ; precisely as would be the 
question of alienage, or any other question touching the qualification 
of the claimant. 

In addition to this, the member elect, before taking his seat, is by 
an act of Congress, of July 2, 18t32, required to take a most searching 
oath, that he " has not voluntarily borne arras against the United 
States, or given aid, countenance, counsel or encouragement to per- 
sons engaged in armed hostility thereto, or sought or accepted or at- 
tempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any 
authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States." 

And it is expressly provided, that "any person who shall falsely 
take said oath, shall be guilty of perjury, and on conviction, in addi- 
tion to the penalties now prescribed for that offence, shall be deprived 
of his oflice and rendered incapable forever after of holding any office 
or place under the United States." In case of a member of either 
House of Congress, he would be indicted here, in the District of Co- 
lumbia, and tried by a jury of the District. If Jeff. Davis, or any 
other traitor, should come here claiming a seat in Congress, and that 
body should be so remiss in its duty as to admit him, it will be in 
your power, fellow-citizens of the District, to transfer him to a cell in 
the penitentiary. 

But let me return to the proposition in hand. 

By the first section of the "Confiscation Act," just referred to, 



IS 

every person guilty of treason against tlic United States, incurs the 
penalty ol' death, or, (at the discretion of the Court) of a lieavy fine 
and long imprisonment; and, in addition to either, of having "all his 
slaves, if any, Ucclarril and made free. ''"' 

By the second section, any person guilty of inciting, assisting, or 
engaging in, or giving aid and comfort to, any existing rebellion or 
insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws 
thereof, subsequent to the date of said act. incurs the penalty of fine 
or imprisonment, or both, (at the discretion of the Court,) and in ad- 
dition thereto, that of "the 'ib<ralion of all In'a s/avf.-i, if any he //are." 

I think no one can seriously doubt the constitutionality of these en- 
actments — not even a " Copperhead.'' 

Now, how many slave owners in the rebellious States have failed to 
incur these penalties ? Scarcely one in a hundred, I venture to as- 
sume. The Union men of the South, as a general rule, do not belong 
to the slave-holding classes. The slaves of all snrh as have inmrred 
them, are noic hyally mlill'.'d to their freedom. To give complete prac- 
tical eftect to that title, it is only necessary that the guilt of the master 
shall be judicially established. But I will show you that there is a 
shorter way of arriving at that end than by subjecting every slave 
owner to a criminal prosecution, or resorting to any other judicial 
proceeding to establish his gtult. There is a way provided by law, in 
which the President can break the manacles of every slave, bound to 
a rebel master, at a single blow: A way of constraining every rebel 
slave-holder to solemnly renounce and relinquish all claim upon his 
slaves, without the formality of any trial. 

By the 18th section of the " Confiscation Act," the President is 
"authorized at any time hereafter, by proclamation, to extend to per- 
sons who may have participated in this rebellion in any State or part 
thereof, pardon and amnesty, with such exceptions and at such times, 
and on such conditions as he may deem expedient for the public wel- 
fare." 

Now, on the suppression of the rebellion, and the practical restora- 
tion of the Union, .some kind of a proclamation of "pardon and am- 
nesty" will of course be issued. It would be impracticable to try all 
the oftimders, if it were desirable to do so. The country will demand, 
however, that from the benefits of any such act of Executive clemency, 
the more prominent leaders of the rebcllon shall be excepted; and as 
to all others, the President is anthorized to olVer them " pardon and 
amnesty"' " on such condtions as he may deem expedient for the pub- 
lic well'are.'' 

Now, if the President shall deem it " expedient for the public wel- 
fare" that a death blow be administered to Slavery in the rebellious 
States, let him make it an invariable condition on which pardon and 
amnesty shall be extended to any rebel slave owner, that he shall for- 
mally and solemnly, by deed of ntanv mission, rewnnre ami relin'jui.'<h all 
claim of title or o>'iirrshij> in and to his slaves. If any one shall refuse 
to comply with these terms, he will do so at the peril of being tried 
and convicted, and compelled to sufler all the other severe penalties 
incurred by his crime, in addition to the liberation of his slaves. Of 
two such evils, would not every sane man choose the lesser ? 

The views which I have been presenting to you this evening I have 



u 

lately laid before the public, more briefly, in two anonymous publica- 
tions in a city newspaper, [TT'cf Cla-onick.] It has been said by the 
Editor of that paper, that by asserting the constitutionality and legal 
ity of this mode of administering a death blow to Slavery in the re 
bellious States, I weaken the force of my argument against the con 
stitutionality of the proposed measure of annexing terms and condi 
tions to the return of the revolted States to the Union. I must con 
fess, I " can't see it !" My proposition is this : Every slave owner 
who has voluntarily participated in the rebellion since the passage of 
the " Confiscation Act" has legally incurred the penalty, under exist- 
ing laws, of the " liberation of all his slaves," and in addition there o 
that of death, or oi a heavy fine and imprisonment. The President is 
authorized to remit these penalties, in whole or in part, " on such 
coalitions as he may de^m expedient for the public welfare." Now, 
if the President shall "deem it expedient for the public welfare" to 
remit (with proper exce])tions as to persons,) all of said penalties save 
that of the lil eration of the slaves of the offender, he is authorized to 
do so on condition that every one receiving the benefit of his clemen- 
cy shall voluntarily submit to the excepted penalty, and make his 
submission thereto effectual, by solemnly renouncing all title and in- 
terest in and to his slaves, by a formal deed of manumission. This is 
a very different proposition from that of making it a condition to the 
practical return of any State to the Union, that she shall first abolish 
Slavery. The former proposition acts upon indivi'luah, holding them 
to one only of several penalties which they have already incurred un- 
der existing laws. The latter acts upon Stati-s, subjecting them to dis- 
abilities which are not imposed by the Constitution. 

It has also bean objectel to my plan for extirpating slavery, that it 
could not be carried into effect if sympathizers with secession should 
get the control of the Federal Government. My answer to this is — 
no more could any of your plans. 

Again, it has been objected, that this plan will not free all the 
slaves in the rebellious States — that it does not reach the slaves of 
loyal Uniou men. This is true. But when the slaves uf all the rebels 
in those States are liberated, it will be a light job to sweep away the 
little vestige of slavery that would remain. Those slaves not liberated 
would be worth little or nothing, surrounded as they would be by a 
large population of free blacks. Tlie few Union men who own slaves 
generally profess a willingness to give them up, if by so doing they 
can contribute to the salvation of the Union and the restoration of 
peace. They would certainly give them up for a moderate compensa- 
tion, to be paid by the Federal Government. 

It is said, however, that the state of public sentiment in the rebel- 
lious States will render it impracticable to convict anyone there of the 
crime of participating in the rebellion, even after the Union shall have 
been practically restored. Hence it is argued, that the " Confiscation 
Act" will have no terrors, and that any amnesty which the President 
may offer will be .so lightly valued, that few slave-holders would ac- 
cept it on the conditions mentioned. Is not this danger exaggerated? 
It should be remembered, that no State can be practically restored to 
the Uni(m until the friends of the Union shall have regained the as- 
cendency therein. Is it to be assumed that they will have much sym- 



patliy for the authors of all their misery and ruin? It should be re- 
membered, also, that all prosecutions of persons charged with the 
crime of participating in the rebellion will be cimducted in the United 
States Courts, whose Judges will be apjiointed by the President, by 
and with the advice and consent of the Senate. And said Judges, by 
the second section of an act of Congress passed J\ine 17, 1S62, are au- 
thorized to require every Grand and Petit Jurijr, serving in said 
Courts, to take a most solemn and seareliing oath, that he has never, 
without duress or constraint, taken up or borne arms against the Uni- 
ted States in this rebellion, nor in any way, directly or indirectly, vol- 
untarily given aid or comfort to the rebellion, or any one Engaged or 
about to engage in it. Is it to be assumed, that in Courts who.se 
Judges are appointed by the President and Senate, with juries who 
could take this searching oath, notorious rebels and traitors would go 
scot free ? 

I respectfully submit, fellow-citizens, that the plan I have here pre- 
sented for breaking down the institution of slavery, is wot only free 
from constitutional objections, and perfectly consistent with the past 
action and theory of the Government, but i.s, withal, quite as «flectual 
as any other which has been proposed. It raises no preliminary issues 
relating to the practical reconstruction of the Union, to distract and 
divide the country. It leaves all truly loyal and innocent citizens of 
the rebellious States perfectly free to resume all their rights in the 
Union, untrammeled by terms or- conditions. To the guilty participa- 
tors in the rebellion it says : Whenever you will lay down your arms 
and return to your allegiance, you shall be reinstated in all your rights, 
as heretofore enjoyed in the Union, except such as you have for/ cited by 
your criminal in/ractions of existin;/ penal laws ; and as to the rights so 
forfeited, you must take your cliances of having them restored, in 
whole or in part, by such an exercise of the pardoning power as may 
be deemed " most expedient for the public welfare." Even to them it 
proposes no terms but those of unconditional submission to the Con- 
stitution and laws, as they now exist. It ])roposes no ex jj<)sl facto pen- 
alties, forfeitures, or disabilities. 

It may be, and undoubtedly is, true, that if the rebellion were to be 
completely put down to-morrow, there would not be found, in certain of 
the revolting States, a sutficieut number of Union men to re-institute and 
maintain a State Government under the Constitution. This is not true, 
however, of all of said States. When such is found to be the case, 
there will be no alternative but to hold the State under military sub* 
jection, until a loyal population shall appear, by immigration or other- 
wise. 

Fellow-citizens, I earnestly hope, and trust, and believe, that this 
war, under Divine Providence, will prove a death-blow to slavery in 
this country. I sheuld extend these remarks (already too protracted) 
beyond all reasonable limits, if I should undertake to give my views 
as to the probable way in which the problem may be worked out. It 
will not be, however, b}- any such empirical theories of " reconstruction" 
as those which I have been reviewing. It will not be by denouncing all 
Union men of the South as public enemies, divested of all political and 
private rights under this Government. It will be elYected, if at all, 
through the instrumentality or powerful aid of an anti-slavery party 



16 

on Southern soil. Citizens " to the manor born" must take hold of the 
work. They must be encouraged to do so, and not denounced and 
proscribed as outlaws, " whether loyal or disloyal, friendly or hostile, 
guilty or innocent." The non-slave-holding masses, who are guilty in 
an inferior ilegree, or not at all, must be treated leniently, and encour- 
aged to adopt a policy which will elevate them in the scale of human- 
ity, and promote their highest interests. The guilty authors of the re- 
bellion, consisting, mainly, of the slave-holding aristocracy, must be 
dealt with more severely. We must hang some, and permit others to 
save their necks by emigrating. And as to those who remain, they 
must be stripped of their badges of superiority, and reduced to the 
ranks of society. I have shown how the President may shear the locks 
in which their greatest power lies, if he shall " deem it expedient for 
the public welfare." But my main reliance is upon the tuiancipated 
toJiit'is of the South to do the work. For, rest assured, this war, if 
prosecuted to its hoped for and legitimate results, will emancipate as 
many white'men as negroes, and from a thraldom little less degrading. 
There is no natural reason why the " poor whites" of the South should 
love antl revere their oppressors; but many why they should hate 
them. liitherto they have been held enslaved to other men's ideas, by 
extreme ignorance, and a tyranny which denied them any leaders — 
men who would court their influence by appealing to them as a dis- 
tinct class, having rights and interests in direct antagonism to those of 
the slave-holding aristocracy. Ignorant men can do nothing, politi- 
cally, without leaders. When the rebellion shall be put down these 
leaders will appear. The sceptre will have departed from the hand of 
the oppressor, and the intellect of the masses will be set free. Ambi- 
tious men — demagogues, if you please, will not be slow to appreciate 
the change, and to discover the road that will lead to popular favor at 
home, and political preferment at Washington. In my judgment, when 
this rebellion shall be successfully put down, a rapidly increasing anti- 
slavery sentiment in the rebellious States will be inevitable. It cannot 
be otherwise. 

To put down the rebellion is the great object to which we should 
direct all our energies. And to do this, it is all-important that sym- 
pathizers with the rebels should be kept out of power. Let us, then, 
fellow-citizens, eschew all new issues in relation to the " reconstruction 
of the t'nion," and join in a hearty support of the Administration, and 
all its measures for carrying on a vigorous prosecution of the war, 
V till the last armed foe expires." This is the great work which Provi- 
dence has noiv entrusted to our hands. Let us perform this task llrst, 
and we shall then see more clearly what it will be our duty to attempt 
afterwards. 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



012 028 964 



I 



H. POLKINHOB^N, PIUXXER, D STREET, BBTWEEST QtU. AND 7tH. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



012 028 964 






